DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are amended.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the final rejection dated 31 October 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the prior office action, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0128136 (hereinafter, Post) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0053862 (Ecke et al., hereinafter, Ecke).
Regarding Claim 1, Post discloses A surgical robotic system (see at least [0029] and FIG. 3: system 10) comprising:
a robotic arm including a plurality of robotic arm joints (see at least [0029]-[0030] and FIG. 3: manipulator 14 and joints 22); and
a controller (see at least FIG. 3: controller 40) configured to:
receive an alignment for the robotic arm including an aligned position for each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints (see at least [0050]-[0053]: “the controller 40 is configured to determine the appropriate joint angles to command for the joints 22 based on the output of the virtual simulation 42. That is, the controller 40 computes the commanded joint angle for each of the joints 22 in response to the input force”);
switch each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints into a passive mode for aligning each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints to the respective aligned position (see at least [0084]: “In another application, the manipulator 14 directs autonomous movement of the tool 30 in an autonomous mode of operation. Here, the manipulator 14 is capable of moving the tool 30 free of operator assistance. Free of operator assistance may mean that an operator does not physically contact the tool 30 to apply force to move the tool 30. Instead, the operator may use some form of control to remotely manage starting and stopping of movement. For example, the operator may hold down a button of a remote control to start movement of the tool 30 and release the button to stop movement of the tool 30”; the joints are switched between the autonomous mode and the mode where the operator does contact the tool);
track a position of each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints while each robotic arm joint is manually moved into its aligned position (see at least [0033] and [0042]: “Each joint motor 24 may be equipped with a position sensor 26”; “One example of the position sensor 26 is an encoder that measures the joint angle of the respective joint 22”, “The controller 40 is further connected to the position sensors (e.g., encoders) 26 and is configured to measure an actual joint angle of each respective joint 22 using signals received from the position sensors 26”);
wherein the passive mode comprises permitting manual movement of each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints while an actuator associated with each robotic arm joint is controlled to simulate passive behavior (see at least [0032] and [0081]: “Each joint 22 is actively driven by one of the joint motors 24. Utilization of the methods described herein may, at times, give the impression that some of the joints 22 are passive, meaning that the joint 22 is moved directly by the force exerted by the user (similar to a door joint). However, the joints 22 in the embodiments described herein are not passive. The system 10 and method mimic passive behavior by actively driving the joints 22 and thereby commanding control of the manipulator 14 in response to determined forces applied to the manipulator 14.”, “The system 10 and method may utilize the backdriving technique described herein for several different applications or situations. In one example, the user of the robotic system 10 can control the manipulator 14 by applying force to the surgical tool 30 and by backdriving the manipulator 14 by applying the external force to any given joint(s) 22 or link(s) 22. This may allow the user to grossly position the manipulator 14 with ease. Such application may be particularly useful when setting up the manipulator 14 at the work site.”).
Post does not explicitly disclose lock in a predetermined sequence each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints once the aligned position for each robotic arm joint is achieved.
Ecke, in the same field of surgical robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches receive an alignment for the robotic arm including an aligned position for each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints (see at least [0066] and Fig. 2: “If all joints are determined to have been adjusted to their target position, the method end in step S2.8 because the alignment of the mechatronic articulable arm has been completed”) and lock in a predetermined sequence each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints once the aligned position for each robotic arm joint is achieved (see at least [0025]-[0032] and [0078]-[0088]: “The instructions provided may be joint by joint (e.g. also only unlocking one joint at a time) or comprise multiple joints at a time”; “The joints can be locked automatically if the target encoder position is reached within a certain threshold”; “the instruction data is determined by determining an order in which the at least two spatial relationships between the connected elements shall be adjusted”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determination of an aligned position relative to a body part, displaying how to reach said aligned position, and locking of joints on the way to aligned position of Ecke with the invention of Post with the motivation of having an efficient method for an operator to align an arm towards a target position (see at least Ecke [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Ecke further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) further comprising: a display configured to output an indication that each robotic arm joint of the plurality of robotic arm joints is moved into its aligned position (see at least [0066] and Fig. 2: “the instruction is output to a user for example on a display device such as a monitor 11”; an indication that a robotic arm joint is moved into its aligned position includes changing to the next instruction as shown on the flowchart for Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Ecke further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the display is further configured to output a second indication that the robotic arm is in an aligned configuration (see at least [0066] and Fig. 2: one of ordinary skill in the art would determine no instruction is displayed, therefore, the robotic arm is an aligned configuration).
Regarding Claim 4, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Ecke further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the display is configured to output instructions for aligning the robotic arm (see at least [0020], [0066], [0072], Fig. 2, and Fig. 5: “the instruction is output to a user for example on a display device such as a monitor 11”).
Regarding Claim 5, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Furthermore, Ecke further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the instructions include aligning the plurality of robotic arm joints in the predetermined sequence (see at least [0066[, [0088], and Fig. 2: “joint between two connected elements of the mechatronic articulable arm is selected for alignment (i.e. adjustment) in step S2.4. The instruction data is determined in step S2.5 and the instruction is output to a user for example on a display device such as a monitor 11”).
Regarding Claim 6, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Ecke further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the alignment corresponds to a configuration of the robotic arm selected from the group consisting of a storage configuration, a transport configuration, and an operation configuration (see at least [0006[ and Fig. 5: “The disclosed method encompasses determining an instruction for adjusting the arm segments of a mechatronic articulable arm with optimum efficiency so that the distal end of the arm reaches a desired position relative to a target object such as an anatomical body part” (i.e., an operation configuration)).
Regarding Claim 7, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Post further discloses further comprising: an instrument configured to mechanically engage the robotic arm (see at least [0035] and FIG. 3: energy applicator 32 / tool 30).
Regarding Claim 8, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Post further discloses further comprising: a movable cart including a setup arm configured to engage the robotic arm, the setup arm including a plurality of setup arm joints (see at least FIG. 3 and [0036]: portable cart 19, joints J1 and J2 can be considered setup arm joints).
Regarding Claim 9, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Furthermore, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a second alignment for the setup arm including a second aligned position for each setup arm joint of the plurality of setup arm joints; switch each setup arm joint of the plurality of setup arm joints into the passive mode during which each setup arm joint is manually movable; track a second position of each setup arm joint of the plurality of setup arm joints while each setup arm joint is manually moved its second aligned position; and lock each setup arm joint of the plurality of setup arm joints once the second aligned position for each setup arm joint is achieved would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the same reasons as Claim 1 as the “setup arm joints” are just the joints closest to the cart (joints J1 and J2 in Post) and one of ordinary skill would find it obvious for them to act in the same way as the other joints.
Regarding Claim 10, the Post and Ecke combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Furthermore, wherein the plurality of robotic arm joints and the plurality of setup arm joints are aligned together would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the same reasons as Claim 1 as the “setup arm joints” are the joints closest to the cart (joints J1 and J2 in Post) and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious for them to act in the same way as the other joints / be aligned together.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 9, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658